Stalin goes west 1945

[Xen]

As OTL stands it is out of Stalin's character to attack the west after World War II ended in 1945. However if we change things in Moscow then it could become conceivable.

Let us say that the Red Army couldn't loot and plunder eastern Europe for their own benefit. The Nazi's had devestated it far too bad for the Soviets and their meager economy to handle. Due to the poor economy, Stalin neglects to declare war on Japan leaving a US and UK alliance to to invade Korea. The allies get some help from Mao who attacks Manchuria with support of the RAF and the USAAF. After the US drops the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan surrendors. The war appears over and the allies begin to dismantle their forces and send them home.

Food shortages at home erupts into a riot in Moscow that later turns into a Massacre when the Red Army opens fire on starving rioters, killing over 1000 in 48 hours. Stalin begins to fear a coup led by the army unless he is able to pass the buck. In a speech he gives to the Russian people he blames the US and UK for trying to starve Russia and was plotting to turn the Soviet Union into a Capitalist dictatorship. Accusing well known Generals from the recent war of plotting with the American's, Stalin began yet another purge of the Army.

Word of Stalin's speech reached London and Washington, causing great concern among the allies. Prime Minister Atlee, President Truman and General DeGualle met in Paris. DeGualle, in spite of his past differences with Washington made it clear to Truman that France would do its part if the Soviet Union would attack. Truman and Atlee discussed the possibility of re-arming the German Army, an idea opposed by DeGualle.

Stalin used the Paris meeting between the allies as propaganda, spreading the word, the allies were plotting against the Soviet Union. Reading over his intelligence, Stalin was told the US had exhausted its nuclear weapons in the war with Japan and would be months away from completing another. Stalin's inner circle convinced him that if Soviet Supremecy acted quick enough, that the US and UK could be pushed out of mainland Europe ending the war leaving the wealth of Europe to Stalin.

In November 1945, months after World War II ended, the world woke to a shock when Soviet troops invaded West Berlin, killing many American, British and French troops garrisoning the city. Truman addressed congress the following day asking for a declaration of war "Yesterday, Stalin and the Red Army sacked Berlin, unless we stop them, tomorrow they will be in Paris, next week they will be in London, and next month they will be in New York. Will we let the sacrafice of so many of America's sons be for nothing. Those who died liberating France, Italy and Germany from Hitler shall not have died in vein." A war exhausted United States and its war exhausted ally United Kingdom declared war on the Soviet Union. World War III had begun.

[Melvin Loh]

Wouldn't this renewed war also be fought out in the Mideast over Soviet troops still present in Iran ?

[Valamyr]

Is the bit about exhausted nuclear weapons historically true? I knew there was only a handful.

If so, how long, under life or death conditions, to make two more?

[Xen]

From my understandings the United States had one left, they were saving it for Tokyo I believe but Japan surrendored first, thankfully.

At this point all three major WWII powers have an elaborate intelligence system, so its possible the USSR could have known about the other weapon, on the other hand its possible the US could have led Soviet spies astray. I went with what Grey Wolf calls the coin flip option, it favored the US, What the US needs to do is transport this bomb where it can not be seen by Soviet spies and get it to a place where it can be in striking distance of a major USSR city, Leningrad comes to mind, but so does Stalingrad. To get to Stalingrad depends if Turkey joins the western allies or if they remain neutral. It doesnt seem likely theyd join the USSR.

[Guilherme Loureiro]

Is the bit about exhausted nuclear weapons historically true? I knew there was only a handful.

If so, how long, under life or death conditions, to make two more?

Historically, the last two bombs of the original batch were expended at the Bikini Atoll tests, and if they weren't used, radioactive decay would have made them useless pretty soon. A-Bomb production restarted in 1949. Of course, given a USSR attack, the production line wouldn't have been shut down.

[Xen]

Does anyone have any idea of how the war might go?

Would Franco get involved in a war with the Soviet Union? How would the communists of Spain, Italy and France react to a Soviet invasion? How far could the Red Army advance before the battle hardened American and British Army stopped them? Could they stop the Soviets? Would Truman only accept an unconditional surrendor? Whose side does Mao take? Would the US rearm the Germans and Japanese to have them fight the Soviets at their side?

I honestly thought this idea would spark some intrest, I guess I was wrong seeing how few responses it has received.

[MattRice]

Would Stalin risk pushing on further into the West with the threat of Atomic attack hanging over his head? I mean, if we're saying there's one bomb left, couldn't the West drop it on Leningrad and then say "Ok Ivan, you withdraw right now or it's goodbye Moscow"? How's Stalin gonna know it's a bluff? Would he risk it?

[MattRice]

No, no... This is all good stuff!...

If Stalin suges ahead, perhaps knowing that the West dosent have a bomb,
It would be interesting to see what Franco would have done... I mean, the Communists in the various countries would rise up i'm sure and France and Britain would need all the help they could get. I suppose an uneasy alliance between Spain and the others would arise.... In this case, i think Stalin could be stopped before he reached Paris...

[Suit_N_Tie]

If Patton knew something was afoot prior to the Soviet attack on the West, he would have already been re-arming the million or so German POWs the Western Allies had captured during the last remaing months of the war...

[Xen]

Intresting I was at a website about Changing the Times when I came across one where Stalin attacked Britain and the US. However there is something that caught my eye

The Battle of the Rhine was the single worst battle ever won by the western allies in the entire history of warfare. Fought in July 1945 in dropping snow and terrible cold, 47 British and American divisions, 14 of which were armoured, faced off against 170 Russian divisions, 30 of which were armoured.

Does it snow along the Rhine in July? I live in the Appalachain Mountains, it doesnt snow in July here unless its a freak weather occurance.

[NapoleonXIV]

I don't live along the Rhine but I'm still pretty sure it doesn't snow there in July. I don't think it snows in Fairbanks or Calgary in July.

Its a very interesting scenario but I think one minor change might make it more believable. Have Stalin attack the Allies because he truly thinks they are about to attack him. for one reason or another. As you know, that was one logical course for the Western Allies and I'll lay money Stalin was watching for any sign it might happen. Perhaps he might even have delusions that they've contacted the revolutionaries in his Army.

Having him do it for the reasons you're giving seems very unlikely. Sending exhausted troops into another war might just as easily bring on the mutiny as well as quell it. Also, it would have to be a last-ditch thing on Stalin's part. What you're having him do is take on his former allies AND his enemies, as the West would almost certainly re-arm the Germans in time. Why shouldn't they? Hitler is dead and the Nazis are toothless in the Post war world. They've been defeated once and their industry is mostly destroyed or in Western hands. The real enemy of the West is now Stalin.

Oh, and don't count Japan out, by any means. The Japanese Army in China particularly was probably the least defeated Axis corps left in the world.

[Brilliantlight]

I don't live along the Rhine but I'm still pretty sure it doesn't snow there in July. I don't think it snows in Fairbanks or Calgary in July.

Its a very interesting scenario but I think one minor change might make it more believable. Have Stalin attack the Allies because he truly thinks they are about to attack him. for one reason or another. As you know, that was one logical course for the Western Allies and I'll lay money Stalin was watching for any sign it might happen. Perhaps he might even have delusions that they've contacted the revolutionaries in his Army.

Having him do it for the reasons you're giving seems very unlikely. Sending exhausted troops into another war might just as easily bring on the mutiny as well as quell it. Also, it would have to be a last-ditch thing on Stalin's part. What you're having him do is take on his former allies AND his enemies, as the West would almost certainly re-arm the Germans in time. Why shouldn't they? Hitler is dead and the Nazis are toothless in the Post war world. They've been defeated once and their industry is mostly destroyed or in Western hands. The real enemy of the West is now Stalin.

Oh, and don't count Japan out, by any means. The Japanese Army in China particularly was probably the least defeated Axis corps left in the world.

The Soviet economy was running on fumes and was pretty dependent on Lend Lease. The US was the only Great Power that didn't even level out and it could have easily increased the size of its army and army air force.

[dittomitto2445]

Oh, and don't count Japan out, by any means. The Japanese Army in China particularly was probably the least defeated Axis corps left in the world.


what that army was destroyed when the soviets invaded at the end of the war. The Germany troops in northern italy were the best standing axis troops left.

[Darkest]

Interesting scenario.

[mavblitz]

The mention of a second purge while possible assuring Stalin's mania of a loyal officer corps would have had terrible consequences on the Red Army and would have eliminated the sudden rebound of military competence and professionalism accumulated in the Great Patriotic War. Stalin wouldn't have gone west anyway he had already by the end of the war gotten nearly all of eastern Europe in his orbit. The most plossible scenario for a flair up to open war was if Patton had lived and stayed in active service in Germany. America had the bomb they could have shipped it to Europe openly to let Stalin know they he must respect the allied wishes concerning the fate of Eastern Europe as proposed at Yalta. This could have been the spark for an immediate third world war or at least viewed as an extension of the second.

[blysas]

Look let's just stick to the thread. Stailn invades Western Europe, he will overrun Berlin and the River Elbe.If he is quick enough the Soviet army with help from other bits and pieces from the Polish troops mightreach the Rhine. The problem is after that is that the allies will uses it as a last srand scenraio. If the soviets can break through the Rhine, they might have a chance of reaching France.

The other problem I find when seeing these threads about Stalin attacking the west is that everyone expects the the Armecians can launch an attack within the first few days. The reality is that it takes a coulpe of months to train the crew and transpoet it to the right airfeild and then finally finding a city to nuke.

If we had the Soviets breaking through the Rhine. However, they fail to push through competly, we might see the Aremican commanders deciding to use the bomb on a russian city. Tge problem is that if you were to nuke a random city, let's say stalingrad. It will affect that region but it wouldn't mean the war i going to end.

Now my question to you now of Stalin attacs the West, how far and how long will the war be carried out ?
cOMMENTS ?

[Max Sinister]

I can easily see the Americans throw the bomb on a Siberian harbor, like Vladivostok or Chabarovsk.

[whatisinaname]

Would the German army/air force be rectivated?
If it was wonder how long it would take and how large it would be?
Also how long would German industry would take to get back to full production?

As the saying goes "evey bit helps"

[Berra]

One thing thats overloocked in every wwIII senario I ever seen is Eastern Europe. Will they rebell? Then Stalin would have a hell of a logistical problem if West supports the rebells. And what about the loyalty of the intelligense service. They would be filled with 1930's generation, and communism was pretty popular back then.

[seraphim74]

Originally posted by Berra
One thing thats overloocked in every wwIII senario I ever seen is Eastern Europe. Will they rebell? Then Stalin would have a hell of a logistical problem if West supports the rebells. And what about the loyalty of the intelligense service. They would be filled with 1930's generation, and communism was pretty popular back then.


I can not speak for all Eastern Europe, but Poland would surely rebell or at least start guerilla warfare (in OTL some of the partisant units lasted till 1947, without any support from the West). Polish underground could count on SOE's help, but most important is, they would have hope again. It is also hard to say, how the Polish army would react to war against Allies: communist control might not be strong enough.
OTOH, it is also hard to say how effective that rebelion would be. After Soviets treacherously arrested leaders of Polish underground state, AK (Armia Krajowa - Home Army) was in very serious trouble. It also lost a lot of soldiers in Operation "Burza" (Storm), when they often fought together with Soviets soldiers, only to be later arrested by NKVD. And don't forget the hecatomb of Warsaw Uprising.
However, I believe Polish underground movement could indeed make a merry hell with Soviet logistics, especially if the Allies started drop supplies again.

[Johnnyreb]

Everyone seems to assume Eastern Europe would be a solid block. This was not the case in Czechoslovakia, Austria and even Poland. There was still wrangling over what form their governments would take in 1945. Beria's people had not yet finished arresting the democrats. Also, there were sizeable Czech and Polish forces which at that time were still integrated with the British forces and still physically in the West.

Would these forces fight against the Red Army's Polish & Czech units (and vice versa?) I think the Russians could find themselves with a lot of trouble in their rear areas.

Also the Red Army Tank Armies drove in Russian tanks, but their fuel and ammunition was almost entirely carried in American lorries. For that matter, their officers drove about in American jeeps and their generals in Studebakers.

[DocOrlando]

Blysas, it would take little-to-no time for a bomb crew to be assembled to deliver an A-bomb attack against Soviet lines. After all, the crews of the Enola Gay and Bock's Car were still alive and well. By now I'm sure other bomber crews were starting to receive atomic training as well. I would say no more than three weeks, and possibly less than two would be required to ship a bomb to England (and from there to France or Germany) in preparation for an airstrike on Soviet Europe.

Additionally, while Soviet forces had had a few months' worth of entrenchment between May and November, they still didn't have the infrastructure in place to ensure solid supply lines. The Allies had a distinct advantage in this regard... to say nothing of the cooperation of the citizens of all the nations between the Atlantic and the Eastern front. The Soviets enjoyed no such relationship; they were an occupying army in previously free states, no better than the Germans.

There was a reason Patton wanted to keep pushing east after the Germans surrendered; he knew that the Soviet leading edge was brittle. Even with five months intervening, I don't believe the Soviets could launch an offensive strong enough to push to the Rhine...not with Allied strength in the area. They would hold the advantage in Berlin, because they had it surrounded. But as soon as Berlin fell, the rest of the Allies would mobilize and hold fast.

[DocOrlando]

See also this:

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=9485

And my own little contribution:

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=237876&postcount=78

[The Sandman]

The other big issue was that the Russians, at that point, were out of reserves. The US, on the other hand, was still raising divisions. In the end, the guy who wins a war is the one who still has men to fight it with.

The real question is, in this situation, how long is it before Stalin gets shot by his officers for obvious insanity?

[backstab]

The other big issue was that the Russians, at that point, were out of reserves. The US, on the other hand, was still raising divisions. In the end, the guy who wins a war is the one who still has men to fight it with.

The real question is, in this situation, how long is it before Stalin gets shot by his officers for obvious insanity?


No thats not true, The soviet union still had more reserves than the US could muster. They had more tanks and Artillery (And better) and the biggest Army, The Red Army was not concerned with casulties where the US was very particular about massive losses. I think it would come down to The US holding the line until the casulties got too much and then the US pulling out and leaving Europe to the wolves

[The Sandman]

In 1945, the Soviets were at the end of their tether, seeing as how they had been bled out by four years of brutal fighting. Their army was, admittedly, bigger, but they had no spare bodies for it right at the end of the European war. Also, while their ground equipment was better (although I suspect that we would have rushed better tanks into production), our aircraft were considerably better, and would have immediately begun to savage their supply lines, infrastructure, and essentially anything that moved on their side of the battlefield. Furthermore, we supplied the Russians with most of the equipment they used to keep their logistics and civilian society intact. With Lend-Lease over, they have a few months at best before the food, medicine and spare parts run out.

[Tielhard]

"our aircraft were considerably better, and would have immediately begun to savage their supply lines, infrastructure, and essentially anything that moved on their side of the battlefield."

Er ... no. The Soviet tactical bomber force was far better and bigger than anything the USA or RAF could field. It would do the 'savaging' not those of the west. The West would need to use strategic bombers for tactical work which would be expensive and imprecise.

In six months the situation could be turned about due to the vast production capacity of the USA. However, due to the great disparity in the forces deployed and the quality and experience of the officers the Soviets will be at the Channel before then.

It is also a moot point as to if the Americans fight or run in the event of war. It is an even more moot point as to if the French and British armies mutiny and raise the red banner. It is almost certain they will but there is just a small possibility they might stand.

[Max Sinister]

In fact, without American help, the Soviets might've been at the end of their rope in 1941 or 42 already.

[Grimm Reaper]

In such a war the long run is clear. The Soviet Union goes down. Most likely Stalin or his successors(killers?) sign a peace in late 1946 retreating to the 1939 border rather than a fight to the finish but there is always a chance of an advance by the West to Moscow.

The quality and experience of the Red Army which suffered twice as many casualties in 1945 as the Germans when Hitler was rounding up workers and the Hitler Youth for battle?

[Wozza]

Er ... no. The Soviet tactical bomber force was far better and bigger than anything the USA or RAF could field. It would do the 'savaging' not those of the west. The West would need to use strategic bombers for tactical work which would be expensive and imprecise.

In six months the situation could be turned about due to the vast production capacity of the USA. However, due to the great disparity in the forces deployed and the quality and experience of the officers the Soviets will be at the Channel before then.

It is also a moot point as to if the Americans fight or run in the event of war. It is an even more moot point as to if the French and British armies mutiny and raise the red banner. It is almost certain they will but there is just a small possibility they might stand.

Tielhard the western allies designed the concept of a Tactical Air Force, and had plenty such aircraft. Although they would not have complete air supremacy they would probably have superiority.

Your assumption that Red Army troops would be willing to fight is simply seeing the 41-45 war through the eyes of Soviet propaganda. In any situation short of obvious western aggression the Red Army is at least as likely to break as the western forces. They have had no leave, for four years, their families live in dugouts and they are about to become very short of food.

[NapoleonXIV]

I can not speak for all Eastern Europe, but Poland would surely rebell or at least start guerilla warfare (in OTL some of the partisant units lasted till 1947, without any support from the West). .

I have read that some anti-Soviet partisans lasted until 1952 in the UKRAINE:eek:

[Xen]

Tielhard the western allies designed the concept of a Tactical Air Force, and had plenty such aircraft. Although they would not have complete air supremacy they would probably have superiority.

Your assumption that Red Army troops would be willing to fight is simply seeing the 41-45 war through the eyes of Soviet propaganda. In any situation short of obvious western aggression the Red Army is at least as likely to break as the western forces. They have had no leave, for four years, their families live in dugouts and they are about to become very short of food.

And if I remember correctly the Soviets were anxious to steal the American B-17 bomber during the second world war. Plus the United States and allies had German jet's, as Im sure so did the USSR, but Im willing to bet the US could out produce the USSR in a short time.

The Soviets I believe would have the advantage on the ground, espeically early on in the war, but the west will have the advantage at sea and the sky, which will ultimatley hurt the USSR. What good is tanks and advancing columns if they are constantly targteted being blown up?

[Tielhard]

Wozza,

"In any situation short of obvious western aggression the Red Army is at least as likely to break as the western forces."

More likely to break than the British, Canadians, 'Free Poles', Poles and Kiwis, less likely than the Americans and 'Free' French.

Breaking is not the point. The French at this time are very Red. The British Army and the British Industrial heartland is very Red. Norway is partially Red. Spain would go for Red if it thought it could liberate itself from Franco and Catholicism. Italy and Greece are very Red.

The USA has a plan to withdraw from Europe if the Soviets keep coming. The British General Staff have concluded they cannot win.

"They have had no leave, for four years, their families live in dugouts and they are about to become very short of food."

Regarding the leave simply not correct. Regarding leave, by the time they got home some Canadians had not seen thier family in 6 years and in the case of the Kiwis 8 years. On the subject of food. Lots of food in Western Europe.

"Tielhard the western allies designed the concept of a Tactical Air Force"

Oh! So what were all those Sturmoviks up to then?

"Although they [Western Allies] would not have complete air supremacy they would probably have superiority."

Yes I agree. If then the Soviets behaved like idiots they would always loose. They would not act like idiots however. They would gain local air superiority long enough to exploit thier tactical bombers and destroy Allied Armoured formations then depart.

Xen,

"The Soviets I believe would have the advantage on the ground, espeically early on in the war, but the west will have the advantage at sea and the sky"

Early on it the war. The war would be over very quickly once the continental armies of the Empire and the Union are in captivity it is over. The Western Allies would sue for peace. This is of course assuming the British Army does not raise the red banner and attack the American rear.

[Tielhard]

"I have read that some anti-Soviet partisans lasted until 1952 in the UKRAINE"

I read this too but I am never quite sure if it referred to serious levels of activity or the odd isolated incident in a similar way that one with pro-Communist sympathies might suggest that in present day Russia Communists continue to defy the pseudo-democratic state.

[The Sandman]

The other problem the Red Air Force would have faced is that apparently they bought most of their avgas off of us. It's kind of hard to fly planes without fuel.

[Tielhard]

Kind of hard to fight a war when all your soldiers raise the red banner.

[The Sandman]

What, because they would honestly have enjoyed the depredations of the Red Army?

Especially when we're assuming that it's Stalin who's stupid enough to pick this fight?

Tielhard, not everyone in the world liked Communism, and not all of the Communists liked the Stalinist brand of same. And I would like to know where you came up with the "facts" that state that every single country and army in Europe, except for the US Army, was just itching to start using the Internationale as a cadence.

[blysas]

Look Tiehard I am someone who doesn't like commies because my family loves capatialism. Anyway the view I presented was a blanced sceneraio, the soviets will overhelm the initial allied units. However, for them to breach the Rhine, will not be a walk in the park.

As you suggested earlier, if the soviets break through they might reach the english channel. the problem with that is, as the soviets come closer to the channel they will face more and more allied air power. Evanually that will grind the soviet union to a halt.

After that they will be pushed back into germany and driven out of europe. If both sided don't see it out to the end, there might be a negioated peace. However, if both sides fight on the war might end up in Moscow.

Comments ?

[backstab]

Look Tiehard I am someone who doesn't like commies because my family loves capatialism. Anyway the view I presented was a blanced sceneraio, the soviets will overhelm the initial allied units. However, for them to breach the Rhine, will not be a walk in the park.

As you suggested earlier, if the soviets break through they might reach the english channel. the problem with that is, as the soviets come closer to the channel they will face more and more allied air power. Evanually that will grind the soviet union to a halt.

After that they will be pushed back into germany and driven out of europe. If both sided don't see it out to the end, there might be a negioated peace. However, if both sides fight on the war might end up in Moscow.

Comments ?

Air power alone does not win a war. Sooner or later the US will have to get their hands dirty and as long as the casulties stay low there will be no problem. As soon as the US takes heavy casulties you would see them abandon Europe

[dittomitto2445]

Er ... no. The Soviet tactical bomber force was far better and bigger than anything the USA or RAF could field. It would do the 'savaging' not those of the west. The West would need to use strategic bombers for tactical work which would be expensive and imprecise.

are you kidding me the soviets created there cold war bomber force by duplciating b-29s that landed in the soviet union. They didn't have anything like the forces that bombed dressdon to ruble. They took no part in attacking germany. What it the soviet bombers attack? I haven't heard of them ever attacking anything. Besdies if the usa wants to they just let japan starve and keep there subs in place and see how 20 fleet carriers attack eastern europe from the med. But the usa and britian also have jets coming off line and could use germany designs if they wanted to. The usa had around 50% of the idustrial capacity of the world do you think the soviet union who was stripping there factorys to create new divsions. They were even using women. there just is no way the USSR could have won. The usa would build a decent infastructure (roads railroads). About the ussr having better tanks the pershing was coming online but the goverment say the war ending so they canceled it. We could do the samethingwe did to the germanies and make it so the couldn't movie there troops in daylight.

[Xen]

What, because they would honestly have enjoyed the depredations of the Red Army?

Especially when we're assuming that it's Stalin who's stupid enough to pick this fight?

Tielhard, not everyone in the world liked Communism, and not all of the Communists liked the Stalinist brand of same. And I would like to know where you came up with the "facts" that state that every single country and army in Europe, except for the US Army, was just itching to start using the Internationale as a cadence.

I second this I want to see these facts that Britian and others would immediatley throw up the Red Flag. It sounds like something out of Red Alert

[Tielhard]

So we are agreed then a complete Soviet victory in Europe which may or may not include Britain and an isolated USA. Should make for a more even cold war?

[MerryPrankster]

Kind of hard to fight a war when all your soldiers raise the red banner.

Why do you assume that the Allied armies will mutiny when faced with attack by Soviet soldiers?

Assuming Communist ideology is as widespread as you think it is, they might mutiny if ordered to attack the USSR, but if the Sovs are the aggressors, that's a different matter.

[Johnnyreb]

I have read quite a few regimental histories of the British Army 1944/45 and, whilst the soldiers were interested in ducking (having no wish to get killed just before the end of the war) there is absolutely no indication of mutiny in the field. There was the occasional mutiny usually caused by the authorities' delay in shipping people home for demobilisation.

As for the French Army, we did not see a lot of mutiny in Indo-China and they were many of the same people - also I don't suppose the colonial troops would mutiny, so long as they were paid.
As for Italians, well, Lenin said there were Communists and there were Italian Communists. I could go on and on.

There was a good deal of Socialist/Communist feeling in Britain and France, but I wouldn't confuse this with a wish to be ruled by Uncle Joe, particularly where British and French troops had already been killed in Berlin.

How is Joe going to ideologically justify all this to the Red Army? They had been fighting a long time, without much home leave, to beat Fascism. Well, Fascism was beaten, with a little assitance from our allies the US and Britain. How come these allies are suddenly fascist?

[Tielhard]

POI:

British Army: The sargeant's strike, AEC Incidents? Scots Regts. durring the Occ.?
Canadian Army: Rioted (read 'mutiny') at Aldershot
British homeland: Ship yards strikes

Lots and lots of incidents.

[MerryPrankster]

What were the causes of these strikes and mutinies? In OTL, the US never got into a scrap with the USSR, so it wasn't necessarily pro-Soviet.

[Tielhard]

MerryPrankster: "Assuming Communist ideology is as widespread as you think it is, they might mutiny if ordered to attack the USSR, but if the Sovs are the aggressors, that's a different matter."

This is a fair point but:

a) How do any frontline troops know what is going on?
b) Some elements of the position I have taken here are unrealistically pro-Soviet. I have taken them simply because all previous posters have taken laughably unrealsitic pro-Capitalist positions.
c) It is hard to under estimate how far Left British public opinion was in 45/46/47. Similarly, French public opinion. At that time Britain saw the Soviets as having saved them from Hitler not the USA. British opinion of the USA was very confused at that time. It was recognised they had been a great help to Britain but at the same time the Americans were resented both because of thier preceived renunciation of thier responsibilities in failing to go to war in 1939 and because of jealousy of thier wealth. The idea that the USA won the war is a recent one and has only really begun to dominate since the early 1970s.

[MerryPrankster]

If said frontline troops are minding their own business and the Soviets suddenly start attacking them, I think they'll be angry enough to fight.

[Earling]

For some reason Western Allies vs USSR threads are always like this. People generally accept that the western allies on land are going to be defeated, often in detail.. but somehow the USA shrugs off the loss of half a million to a million men and proceeds magically shipping hundreds and thousands of tanks, men, trucks and such to some non-existant base in France where upon they somehow turn the tide and drive on Moscow.

Or I guess you have the insanely optimistic ones who just have Patton drive to Moscow more or less single handed while the Soviets try desperately to demonstrate a greater level of incompetance than thought possible.

Britain won't accept a second Somme. By this point they can't even accept that physically, let alone politically. If Britain and the other commonwealth forces between them suffer about two hundred thousand casualties, they are out of the war. They might not go red (although I wouldn't rule out the possibility) but there will simply not be enough men to keep the regiments intact let alone perform any kind of operations. You also have the fact that rebellions shall rise all across the Empire if they start being called upon to raise substantial forces. India wants independence now.

France may have been able to raise a force to occupy Germany, but fight the most powerful army in the world? They might not have all been openly communist ready to raise the red banner, but they certainly didn't want to sign up for another round of bloodletting and quite possible occupation. The country is certainly not unified to wage a war. Again, Casualties on a scale similar to the eastern front which is essentially unavoidable with standard Soviet tactics, and the government shall fall and all attempts at peace shall be made.

Even in the USA, the war isn't going to be hugely popular. The huge cool regarding the Soviets hasn't really hit in yet and when it transpires they have taken half a million casualties, or about as many as the war thus far, to save France and a few other nations who they were previously at war, politics shall come into play and they shall withdraw. Japan is still out there, as well as China.

Will the Soviet union suffer by taking half a million casualties. Yes, it shall be even more of a struggle to recover after the war. There may be more bloodshed in occupied countries as rebellion is attempted. (but its unlikely to be successful) Stalin however could, would, and ultimately did find it far easier to grab people and then tell them to fight or die. Thats probably the only political benefit of the Soviet regime but it would serve them well here.

[Redbeard]

A 1945 Soviet Union could not be stopped by a handful of nukes (which would be what was available inside a year or so). Nuking some great cities within range of the allied air forces would of course make an impression in Moscow, but with an intact industry in the Urals and an intact, well equipped and trained army there is no way a person like Stalin will quit - why should he care about some hundred thousands Russians disappearing from the surface when he already, with great pleasure and zeal, had killed far more himself?

But it will of course instantly be turned into propaganda, which can create troubles among the western allies already infected with communist sympathies. The commies OTOH have trouble in explaining the attack on the western allies - so 1-1 in the propaganda war.

But, as other posters have already noted, the big problem of the Soviets will be their dependence on US aviation fuel (much higher octane than ordinary fuel), trucks and a lot of other items like canned food.

With filled up supply dumps and collumns at the starting line of the attack (East Germany) I guess that limits their advance to the normal range of operations from main supply dumbs (railheads) - i.e. appr. 300 km - in other words the Rhine.

Having arrived there they will have to try a political solution meaning the Iron Curtain descending at the Rhine instead of the Elbe. But if the Western allies do not buy that - they know about the supply dependence - the Soviets will be in trouble.

First their splendid tactical air force will be grounded - by lack of avgas and thousands of USAF and RAF fighters. Next their supply lines will be interdicted and no movement will be possible in daylight. I guess the Germans will in this situation take up the partisan/werewolf warfare, making the logistic situation even worse.

Having gained their breath I guess the W.Allies will next land in Denmark and Norway and gain access to the Baltic, preparring a major landing somewhere on the Baltic coast, combined with advancing from Finland on Leningrad and eventually Moscow. With the transport and landing capacity from Overlord still available, plus the landings in Japan postponed, this seriously threatens the Soviet position at the Rhine - and the Union itself. On top of this the Soviets will need large forces to cover their flanks from Italy and the Balkans - or India! Imagine a couple of million Indians equipped by Uncle Sam crossing the Chyber Pass and invading Soviet Central Asia! The Indian army would also be well used in the Persian area seriously threatening the Caucasus.

The best the Soviets could hope for would be a political solution just after having reached the Rhine, but here they need aid from serious internal trouble in the west. I guess the nuking of a number of civilian Soviet targets would be a great help here, but all in all I doubt if the communists will be allowed much headroom anywhere outside Soviet occupied territory. Everywhere the last months of OTL WWII were used to plan for fighting the communist resistance movements after the Germans had gone. For instance the Swedish equipped and based Danish Brigade was intended mainly to fight an expected communist rebellion in Copenhagen after a German capitulation, and a close to 100.000 man underground army left most of the fighting to the communists in the last months of the war, to stay intact for the expected civil war after the German capitulation.

If the Soviets shall keep up the momentum after having reached the Rhine, we need an earlier PoD having the Soviet build a more balanced war industry - less tanks and planes - more avgas, trucks and canned beef. That would probably have the western allies be less willing to supply the Soviets however, and anyway fighting the Germans with vith Valentines and P-40s instead of T34s and Sthumoviks won't be funny - no matter where the gas and the dinner comes from.

I wonder to what degree the US and British "monopoly" on certain supply items was intended as a "safety split"? Anyway it appear to have worked well.

Regards

Steffen REDbeard

[Grimm Reaper]

The outcome is clear.

The US drops an atomic bomb on Moscow, or possibly Leningrad if we want a government left to surrender to us.

Stalin or his successor sues for peace.

The Soviet Union returns to the pre-Ribbentrop-Molotov borders in Europe and gains nothing from Japan.

War over.

Unless you believe the entire Soviet leadership to be utterly insane and willing to keep fighting in the face of atomic weapons, knowing it will be years before they can possibly do anything to respond. The loss of Moscow alone would shatter Soviet supply lines.

Ironically it might make part of the world a much better place, beyond the people of Eastern Europe not suffering under communism, if the British and French are forced to abandon hope of keeping the colonial empires by force much sooner.

It is, of course, pure fantasy to imagine France or Great Britain or Canada going communist. In France the communists proved themselves irrelevant in WWII and it is doubtful they would do better against their fellow French than against German occupiers. Great Britain would certainly have to accept its new and lower status but the corresponding reduction in forces and expense might help turn things around under Atlee sooner and it is doubtful anyone could argue these changes wouldn't take place anyway.

One thing is certain. Having fought to prevent one totalitarian regime from ruling Europe the US and UK and Commonwealth will not allow another one to, especially following an act of treachery by a supposed ally which makes Pearl Harbor pale in comparison.

Since the Soviet Navy is a poor joke Western supply and reinforcement will be a matter of little risk and the Red Air Force was never even able to stop the Luftwaffe in 1945, so the only question is whether the US and the allies beat the Red Army through skill or by a collapse of Russian manpower.

As I said, it won't be a war to the finish, simply a partial surrender by Stalin when he realizes he has overreached.


I might also note that such overreaching was NOT a characteristic of OTL Stalin so some changes are needed there.

[MerryPrankster]

The US would have few atomic bombs (single-digits), so I don't think it's an automatic war-winner, at least in the early stages.

[blysas]

Tiehard if you can read this, then let me explian this again. The Soviet Union gets to the rhine, if they break through they might min. If they fail the allies will keep going until they reach Moscow. With Russia crushed there will be no more commies left!1!!

[Redbeard]

Unless you believe the entire Soviet leadership to be utterly insane and willing to keep fighting in the face of atomic weapons, knowing it will be years before they can possibly do anything to respond. The loss of Moscow alone would shatter Soviet supply lines.



The Soviet leadership WAS utterly insane, and no sacrifice from the population was too big.

Next all vital facilities had been removed from Moscow by late 1941 and the railway network can't be destroyed by a few nukes - and if 50-100.000 killed civilians pr. nuke would shatter the Soviet leadership, it would have collapsed a decade earlier. The best result the allies could hope for would be killing Stalin himself in a surprise strike on the Kremlin.

BTW I'm not even sure Moscow by July 1945 was inside the range of allied bases. As far as I can see from a map there will be at least 1500 km, which AFAIK was just outside the range of the B29s (judging from the distance from Iwo Jima to Japan). N.Norway will probably even a lot of preparation, as I doubt it at the time was likey to have an airstrip capable of taking a B29. Anyway sending bombers carrying a topsecret weapon into enemy airspace without airsuperiority will be very risky - imagine the peril if the plane crashes and the enemy start looking in the wreckage :eek:

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Kursk]

Honestly, you would have to have a pretty early POD to achieve this, because the Soviet economy was pretty devastated by the war with Germany. By the time of Germany's defeat, the USSR was on the verge of collapse--Stalin couldn't have continued west even if he'd wanted to.

[fhaessig]

In France the communists proved themselves irrelevant in WWII .

That depends what you mean by communists.

If you mean Thorez-like true believers ( in Stalinist religion ), who praised the enlightenment of Nazi Germany until June 21st, 1941 and were more interested in dominating the resistance than anything else, that's mostly true ( if only because they were few even inside the communist party ).

If you mean all communist members and fellow-travellers who took up weapons from may 1940 on and went to communist-leaning organisation because these were the most organised in their region at the time; that's mostly false.

But the later are going to fight against the red army in this scenario ( and help hunt down the former - those who are not still in Moscow - ), so it's mostly irrelevent to the thread.

As an amusing aside, given the dates of the thread, Normandie-Niemen is in France, so there are 4 squadrons of air aces, heros of the soviet union, flying Yak-3s, fighting against the red air force.


Oh, BTW, french military forces, at this point, was about 600,000; mostly equipped with German, US and Uk equipment, though some french equipment were coming on-line. I imagine, in this TL, ARL 44 will be produced in bigger quantities.

[Johnnyreb]

This scenario has got like a dream, or perhaps a movie, with the US saving the day at the end, on the Rhine.

The worst tussle the Red Army will have is with the battle-hardened divisions already in West Germany. Any new (green) forces will simply be overwhelmed - the Russians had mastered the art of moving at speed by then. Teilhard and his mutinous comrades will barely have time to shout "Power to the Peo-" before they are squashed flat by Russian tanks racing for Bordeaux and Biarritz, St Nazaire and Brest. The Rhine is no barrier, the Red Army was expert at contested river crossings by 1945.

And when the Russians are sunning themselves in Lorient, what will they do next? Why, they will turn around and go right back to the USSR.

This is because this thread is not Stalin as cold, hard politician (Sorry, Redbeard, at that time he may have been paranoid, but not clinically insane) but Stalin as Genghiz Khan. The Horde will wander across Europe, looting and raping, and then wander off again.

I say this because of one simple question: What would Stalin want with Western Europe? He wanted Eastern Europe as a buffer but what's in western Europe? The industry was wrecked. It has a workforce, but Stalin already has lots of people. Such natural resources as West Europe possessed were already plentifully available in the USSR.

If he was in conquest mode, he would get a huge area of land and millions of people which he would have to secure, administer, feed, police and guard - all at enormous expense, for no particular reward.

So Stalin would have to be in Khan mode, seizing such trinkets as he wanted in West Europe, then wandering elsewhere. Trouble is, I can't see Stalin as the arbitrary Wrath of God - he was far too calculating a man (so actually was Temujin, but that's not the point.)

[Max Sinister]

Why shouldn't Stalin want more power?

[Johnnyreb]

No doubt Stalin wanted better weather, too, but I thought I answered Max's question.

[dittomitto2445]

how can they move with any speed if they have no food, trucks, or spare parts? yes the soviet had a huge factories but all they built were tanks. Tanks need infarty and without trucks they can't be supported. Plus they also got all of there radios from america or britian so how can they communitcate over any distants?

[MerryPrankster]

Was Stalin a "true believer" in World Communism or did he just pay lip service to maintain his personal power?

If the former, then he might well keep Western Europe to incorporate more and more people into World Communism.

[Johnnyreb]

Dittomitto, I already made the point about Stalin's generals' Studebakers, way back. The Russians had the ability to "clone" things very quickly indeed. Look at Ilyussin's (Ilyusian'@s) work on the B-29 and the speed he did it.

For the sake of this thread, let's return to power. There is an idea, invented I believe by George Orwell, that power is garnered for its own sake. This looks all very sinister in a novel, but in real terms power is gathered to keep the individual concerned (and maybe his family) in power. This is not quite the same thing.

Western Europe has a long tradition of democracy and freedom and would not take kindly to censorship, bullying, shortages and all the other repressive processes beloved of Communists. Stalin would have great difficulty holding it down, especially if Britain were still free (given the state of the Soviet Navy, this is likely) and capable of making a nuisance of itself.

By the way, that would be very Orwell - we now have Airstrip One.

Stalin would have to retain large armies in Western Europe, well away from the centre of his power. This is only worthwhile if there are great benefits to be got there and I hope I have already shown there are no such benefits.

Stalin was too canny to be suckered into that situation and I think by that time the ideal of World Communism led by Joseph had taken a back seat. Politics is the art of the possible and he knew that before Butler said it.

[blysas]

As I said the soviets will evanually lose the war against the allies becaue we would have the bomb and we would hav pushed the soviets to moscow

[Max Sinister]

Cut it out, blysas.

[Bulgaroktonos]

Was Stalin a "true believer" in World Communism or did he just pay lip service to maintain his personal power?

If the former, then he might well keep Western Europe to incorporate more and more people into World Communism.

He was a believer in Communism in one Country. But he was also a Russian.

Being a Russian autocrat means moving those borders as far west as possible.

Stalin made no bones about shooting at Allied aircraft that strayed to close to Russian lines. If we pushed a little too hard, Stalin would have shoved back......

[seraphim74]

Stalin wasn't Russian. He was from Georgia (in Caucasus).
He really was power-hungry, but after conquering Eastern Europe he didn't incorporate many states into the USSR (except Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia). He made them his vassal states. If he went further west, he probably would try the same with Western Europeans.

[Redbeard]

Stalin wasn't Russian. He was from Georgia (in Caucasus).
He really was power-hungry, but after conquering Eastern Europe he didn't incorporate many states into the USSR (except Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia). He made them his vassal states. If he went further west, he probably would try the same with Western Europeans.

The Baltic annexations were in 1940, well before the vasalisation of Eastern Europe. In 1939/40 he also annexed parts of Poland, Finland and Romania. After WWII most of East Prussia was annexed too. All in all involving deportations of millions of people.

I agree that a possible conquest of W.Europe not would have meant vasalisation rather than annexation, but that says nothing about the good will of Stalin but more about his limitations. I believe the annexations were limited to areas with some kind of historical Russian claim, but no matter if Stalin being Russian or Georgian, if annexating or vasalisation - the aim was clear: increasing Soviet sphere of influence and creating a buffer zone to the west.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Johnnyreb]

I don't really distinguish much between vassalage and full incorporation into the USSR - either way you are still neck-deep in the KGB.

There is evidence that Stalin did not trouble with states which held no particular reward and/or would be too difficult to occupy. The evidence is Austria, Yugoslavia and Greece.

[seraphim74]

Originally posted by Redbeard
The Baltic annexations were in 1940, well before the vasalisation of Eastern Europe. In 1939/40 he also annexed parts of Poland, Finland and Romania. After WWII most of East Prussia was annexed too. All in all involving deportations of millions of people.
I agree that a possible conquest of W.Europe not would have meant vasalisation rather than annexation, but that says nothing about the good will of Stalin but more about his limitations. I believe the annexations were limited to areas with some kind of historical Russian claim, but no matter if Stalin being Russian or Georgian, if annexating or vasalisation - the aim was clear: increasing Soviet sphere of influence and creating a buffer zone to the west.


I meant second annexation of Balitc states, after the Red Army "liberated" them (since they were first annexed in 1940, Stalin considered them part of Soviet Union). I also didn't say he hadn't wanted to incorporate Eastern Union into USSR because of his good heart; he didn't do it, because he couldn't, not because the lack of strength (I think the Soviets were powerful enough); he wanted to show the West he respected rights of smaller nations, and make Eastern Europeans think he really didn't want to conquer them. Officialy, it was local communists, who took over.
However, if Stalin attacked West he wouldn't have to care about what othersthink: perhaps he would try to annex...pardon: to let Eastern Europe into the great Soviet family. But it would start serious rebelions and with the Red Army fighting the Allies I'm not sure he could afford it.
Personally, I think he would keep occupied countries vassalized; it would spare him some trouble (not much, but always) and would be a good argument for Western communist: they would preach that the Soviets don't want to conquer anybody: see, the Eastern Europeans are still independent. Bulls***t, but plausible for people who didn't know realitis of communists states.